I think there is another deep thing in human psychology that leads to the devaluation of "women's work," which is that we notice events that are relatively rare, but everyday things are like the air we breathe, and virtually unnoticed.
War is "men's work," and it's celebrated. Also it's rare, and a response to an acute event: the invaders are here (or we're invading this land), we fight and die and territory is gained or lost, and then it's over. It is very easy to observe war, simply because war only happens occasionally.
Preparing food and clothing, cleaning the dishes and the house, changing the baby are all things that happen all the time. Because they happen all the time, it's easy for them to fade into features of the universe that are just there, and easy to not notice at all (if you're not doing those jobs). Women's work is then only noticed when it is absent: a lack of supper is a problem to be solved, but supper on the table is just how the world is.
I think this is analogous to how gold was discovered and understood as an element from the very dawn of civilization, but oxygen's existence was controversial until the 18th century. Or to use another example, why surgeons are paid more than public health doctors: Surgeons fix an acute problem that is clearly noticeable, whereas if public health is doing a great job, there are just a lot of problems that never happen in the first place (babies *not* dying of diarrhea, women *not* dying of cervical cancer.) It is very hard to notice a problem that never happened, just like it's very hard to notice the air you breathe. And by the same token, I think, it was harder for "women's work" to be recognized than "men's work" was--paradoxically, because there was more of it, and it was always there.
I haven’t read this piece yet, and I must go to bed; however, skimming it inspired me to promote my pet theory (which accompanies my restack), so I’d better put it here too.
If you think I’m way off base, or if I missed a critical bit in your article...I guess I’ll be embarrassed when I wake up tomorrow.
Here ‘tis:
From the beginning, the early stages of parenting made demands exclusively of women; so obviously so, that it was entirely unremarkable - or at least went unremarked.
The typically male realm of early activities necessitated providing for the family, then tribe, while many of the women would be substantially occupied with childcare.
So the following male dynamic evolved:
Plan
Execute Plan
Reap Reward or Survive Failure
Abandon fallout (unintended consequences)
Go for a beer &/or consensual or non consensual sex
Rest
Repeat
This M-O is a gross simplification, but the point is: this dynamic presumes the role of the female is baked in and includes addressing the fallout (starting with, as suggested already, pregnancy), since the men are busy with the important stuff…the stuff that requires planning.
So there are two groups: the planners, and the cleanup crew. Plans are tautological, they require…planning; whereas the fallout dictates the nature of its resolution.
Plans come from within, they are created and imposed on the world; fallout is created byproduct, it is external to and imposes itself on the cleanup crew.
The planning is misinterpreted as conferring a special status, and the proof is in the drudgery of work that self evidently needs none of that ‘higher level’ (male) thinking.
[I wonder if that outmoded expression ‘woman’s intuition’ ties in here; plans need articulation while comprehension does not]
Applying this recursively over centuries, most states, institutions, and enterprises were forged in this dynamic and never reconsidered from the ground up; rather, we’ve had a lot of patches, but it’s still humanity OS 1.x.
Look at the world.
Time for a new OS. I’ll bet it would prioritize children. Applied wholeheartedly over just one entire generation, that would fix everything.
Hm. I'd say it's at least arguable that “before the 20th cent in Europe men monopolized *all* positions of prestige.” The word “monopolize” is doing some work there as there were many powerful women in European history who wielded real power - Queen Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, Maria Theresa of Austria, Catherine the Great (who was only the last in a line of four nearly consecutive Empresses Regnanf, with the Empress before her being a very similar character), and Anne of Austria who ruled as Regent during the minority of Louis XIV are just a few that spring to mind.
Sure. But these characters are not representative. Before the late 19th century, European women were legal minors, they couldn’t even vote or maintain legal independence after marriage. All parliamentarians were men. Ofc Muslim women could own land but this didn’t secure freedom
Never said they were (and of course their male counterparts were very far from representative of the average European man as well) but to my mind the phrase “*monopolized* *all* positions” implies that no woman ever held power in Europe. Obviously not true!
I’ve seen arguments that democracy actually makes it more difficult for women to access power because it closes off routes traditionally open to women as wife, mother or daughter of powerful man who can assume for herself his status e.g after death, in his absence or as regent.
I think there is another deep thing in human psychology that leads to the devaluation of "women's work," which is that we notice events that are relatively rare, but everyday things are like the air we breathe, and virtually unnoticed.
War is "men's work," and it's celebrated. Also it's rare, and a response to an acute event: the invaders are here (or we're invading this land), we fight and die and territory is gained or lost, and then it's over. It is very easy to observe war, simply because war only happens occasionally.
Preparing food and clothing, cleaning the dishes and the house, changing the baby are all things that happen all the time. Because they happen all the time, it's easy for them to fade into features of the universe that are just there, and easy to not notice at all (if you're not doing those jobs). Women's work is then only noticed when it is absent: a lack of supper is a problem to be solved, but supper on the table is just how the world is.
I think this is analogous to how gold was discovered and understood as an element from the very dawn of civilization, but oxygen's existence was controversial until the 18th century. Or to use another example, why surgeons are paid more than public health doctors: Surgeons fix an acute problem that is clearly noticeable, whereas if public health is doing a great job, there are just a lot of problems that never happen in the first place (babies *not* dying of diarrhea, women *not* dying of cervical cancer.) It is very hard to notice a problem that never happened, just like it's very hard to notice the air you breathe. And by the same token, I think, it was harder for "women's work" to be recognized than "men's work" was--paradoxically, because there was more of it, and it was always there.
I think there is a LOT to this.
I haven’t read this piece yet, and I must go to bed; however, skimming it inspired me to promote my pet theory (which accompanies my restack), so I’d better put it here too.
If you think I’m way off base, or if I missed a critical bit in your article...I guess I’ll be embarrassed when I wake up tomorrow.
Here ‘tis:
From the beginning, the early stages of parenting made demands exclusively of women; so obviously so, that it was entirely unremarkable - or at least went unremarked.
The typically male realm of early activities necessitated providing for the family, then tribe, while many of the women would be substantially occupied with childcare.
So the following male dynamic evolved:
Plan
Execute Plan
Reap Reward or Survive Failure
Abandon fallout (unintended consequences)
Go for a beer &/or consensual or non consensual sex
Rest
Repeat
This M-O is a gross simplification, but the point is: this dynamic presumes the role of the female is baked in and includes addressing the fallout (starting with, as suggested already, pregnancy), since the men are busy with the important stuff…the stuff that requires planning.
So there are two groups: the planners, and the cleanup crew. Plans are tautological, they require…planning; whereas the fallout dictates the nature of its resolution.
Plans come from within, they are created and imposed on the world; fallout is created byproduct, it is external to and imposes itself on the cleanup crew.
The planning is misinterpreted as conferring a special status, and the proof is in the drudgery of work that self evidently needs none of that ‘higher level’ (male) thinking.
[I wonder if that outmoded expression ‘woman’s intuition’ ties in here; plans need articulation while comprehension does not]
Applying this recursively over centuries, most states, institutions, and enterprises were forged in this dynamic and never reconsidered from the ground up; rather, we’ve had a lot of patches, but it’s still humanity OS 1.x.
Look at the world.
Time for a new OS. I’ll bet it would prioritize children. Applied wholeheartedly over just one entire generation, that would fix everything.
:)
Hm. I'd say it's at least arguable that “before the 20th cent in Europe men monopolized *all* positions of prestige.” The word “monopolize” is doing some work there as there were many powerful women in European history who wielded real power - Queen Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, Maria Theresa of Austria, Catherine the Great (who was only the last in a line of four nearly consecutive Empresses Regnanf, with the Empress before her being a very similar character), and Anne of Austria who ruled as Regent during the minority of Louis XIV are just a few that spring to mind.
Sure. But these characters are not representative. Before the late 19th century, European women were legal minors, they couldn’t even vote or maintain legal independence after marriage. All parliamentarians were men. Ofc Muslim women could own land but this didn’t secure freedom
Never said they were (and of course their male counterparts were very far from representative of the average European man as well) but to my mind the phrase “*monopolized* *all* positions” implies that no woman ever held power in Europe. Obviously not true!
I’ve seen arguments that democracy actually makes it more difficult for women to access power because it closes off routes traditionally open to women as wife, mother or daughter of powerful man who can assume for herself his status e.g after death, in his absence or as regent.
I'm not making any argument at all, just a quick statement on how her comment read to me.